Last week I was watching a news program
on our local public broadcasting station. They featured an article on
a gathering of bird-watchers that was taking place in our city. The
section focused particularly on the economic benefit that
bird-watching brings to our region. This caught my attention because
it represents to me a disturbing trend I see in society and in the
church: the tendency to evaluate everything in terms of the economic
cost and benefit.
I do not think it inherently wrong to
evaluate the cost and benefit of a particular activity or course of
action. Often it is quite essential that we do so. However I am
disturbed when this becomes the sole or primary justification for an
activity. This implies that if something will not be economically
beneficial, it is not worth pursuing, as if life can be reduced
simply to economics. There is nothing wrong with looking at the
economic impact of bird-watching, nor with indicating that it brings
economic benefit to our area. But would bird-watching be less
worthwhile if it did not bring this benefit?
The producers of that news show felt
that emphasizing the economic benefits of bird-watching would be the
best angle for the story, although the program itself is not
specifically focused on economics. This indicates that the economic
angle was perceived to resonate with viewers. Were this an isolated
incident I might not think much of it. But I see similar emphases in
other situations. In my own organization there is a push for
operating more efficiently, for generating more “bang” for the
“bucks” our donors provide. Again, this is not necessarily a bad
thing. It is good to use funds responsibly, especially as a
non-profit organization.
My concern remains though, that we cannot
evaluate the value of an activity simply or solely in terms of its
economic impact. Some activities are worthwhile regardless of their
economics. Some are worthwhile even though they may have a negative
economic impact. I think this problem lies partially at the root of
debates about government spending. If we expect our government to
operate exactly like a business, then we must evaluate whether any
particular activity produces positive economic growth. But if we
accept that some activities are worthwhile regardless of economic
impact, then we allow the possibility that the government (or other
organization or business) may engage in that activity even though it
actually costs money in the end. One example that comes to my mind is
public transportation. I believe that it is worthwhile for
governments to support public transportation even if it is not
self-sustaining or profit-generating. The reasons for this are beyond
the scope of this blog post, but I maintain that they exist. Other
examples could be cited.
Economics are a factor in our lives.
They are not the only factor. When we make them the deciding factor,
we may miss out on activities or courses of action that bring other
benefits. We need a more holistic assessment of the cost and benefit
of any choice, something more than simply whether it will bring
economic gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment